nine and sixty rules and moderation

[zeborah]

birdsedge wrote:
Who rules?

And who rules the rulers?

And there were a couple of replies there but this may be something we need to discuss more.

[Or should we just create the community already and make it up as we go along?]

Do we want to moderate?

What do we want to moderate?

• Do we want to ever be able, for whatever reasons and under whatever restrictions, to exclude entire people; or do we want to only ever exclude particular topics, or styles, or posts?
• Should it be defined or will we know it when we see it?

Who do we want to do the moderating?

• One supreme dictator, a supreme triumvirate, a group of representatives polling the mood of the tyranny of the mob?

I know what I want but it may well not be what's best for the group so I need to think some more before I actually say anything.

Comments

Re: Some rambly thoughts

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

That sounds good and I don't think I have anything to add.

I agree that a cabal is probably the way to go. One person in charge leads to problems if they get too busy/fall sick/get overwhelmed by Life Stuff; relying on a large group reaching concensus is going to lead to lots of acrimony and arguing as everyone fights their corner and by the time a decision is reached, everyone will feel sour and exhausted.

With luck, the fact that the group would have the ability to ban people will prevent us ever having to do that.